Placement Stability, by Number of Placements

Download & Other Tools
Location: (hide)


Year(s): (edit)


Data Type: (edit)


Loading... (edit)


Alameda County
Alpine County
Amador County
Butte County
Calaveras County
Colusa County
Contra Costa County
Del Norte County
El Dorado County
Fresno County
Glenn County
Humboldt County
Imperial County
Inyo County
Kern County
Kings County
Lake County
Lassen County
Los Angeles County
Madera County
Marin County
Mariposa County
Mendocino County
Merced County
Modoc County
Mono County
Monterey County
Napa County
Nevada County
Orange County
Placer County
Plumas County
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Benito County
San Bernardino County
San Diego County
San Francisco County
San Joaquin County
San Luis Obispo County
San Mateo County
Santa Barbara County
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
Shasta County
Sierra County
Siskiyou County
Solano County
Sonoma County
Stanislaus County
Sutter County
Tehama County
Trinity County
Tulare County
Tuolumne County
Ventura County
Yolo County
Yuba County
(Return to top)

Learn More About Foster Care

Measures of Foster Care on
Foster care is measured in several ways, with each indicator illustrating a different aspect of this complex system. First entries into care reflects the incidence of children who are removed from unsafe home environments. Children in care provides a snapshot of actual children in foster care at a point in time. Placement distance describes the availability of local foster homes; it generally is preferable to place foster children close to home. Placement stability is important, as it is traumatic for children to be moved from one living situation to another. Median number of months in care gives an indication of how much time children are spending in foster care. Length of time to adoption describes how quickly the child welfare system is able to secure a permanent, safe home for a child who cannot return to his or her family of origin. Exit status after one year in care, and after four years in care, give a picture of what happens to children after being in foster care for each amount of time, while re-entries into care reflect repeated maltreatment.
Foster Care
Child Abuse and Neglect
Childhood Adversity and Resilience
Disconnected Youth
Intimate Partner Violence
Why This Topic Is Important
Foster care is intended to provide temporary, safe living arrangements and therapeutic services for children who cannot remain safely at home due to child maltreatment or for children whose parents are unable to provide adequate care. The U.S. foster care system aims to safely reunify children with their parents or secure another permanent home, e.g., through adoption. However, too often this goal is not achieved (1, 2). Instead, many children spend years in foster homes or group homes, often moving multiple times (1, 3). These children are at increased risk for a variety of emotional, physical, behavioral, and academic problems (3). Recognizing these issues, advocates and policymakers have made efforts to safely reduce the number of children living in foster care. While the number of children in care has decreased substantially in the U.S. and California over the previous decade, California continues to have the largest number of children entering the system (4, 5).

Nationally, about 10% of foster youth "age out" of the system (without being reunified with their families or adopted), and services often end abruptly (2, 6). Many states, including California, now extend services past age 18 up to 21. While the Affordable Care Act ensures that health coverage continues until age 26, “aging out” of the foster care system can create many challenges for youth (2, 6). A high percentage of these youth experience inadequate housing, low educational and career attainment, early parenthood, substance abuse, physical and mental health problems, and involvement with the criminal justice system (3, 6). Much work is under way to help ensure that these vulnerable youth have the support, skills, and resources to successfully transition to adulthood (2, 6).
For more information about foster care, see’s Research & Links section.

Sources for this narrative:

1.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. (2014). Child welfare outcomes 2009–2012: Report to Congress. Retrieved from:

2.  Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2013). Enhancing permanency for youth in out-of-home care. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. Retrieved from:

3.  Child Trends Databank. (2015). Foster care. Retrieved from:

4.  As cited on, First entries into foster care. (2016). U.C. Berkeley Center for Social Services Research & Child Trends.

5.  KIDS COUNT Data Center. (2016). Children entering foster care. Retrieved from:

6.  Russ, E., & Fryar, G. (2014). Creating access to opportunities for youth in transition from foster care. American Youth Policy Forum. Retrieved from:
How Children Are Faring
In 2015, 62,035 children and youth in California were living in foster care, a rate of 5.8 per 1,000. After hitting a 16-year low of 5.1 per 1,000 in 2011 and 2012, the rate of children in care has risen in recent years. Since 1998, the rate of first entries into care has fluctuated but decreased overall from 3.5 entries per 1,000 children/youth to 2.7 per 1,000 in 2015. Among counties with data, in-care rates ranged from 1.5 to 24.9 per 1,000 and first entry rates ranged from 0.6 to 11 per 1,000 in 2015. In California, 86% of children who entered foster care for the first time in 2013-15 were removed from their families due to neglect, 8% due to physical abuse, and 2% due to sexual abuse. For children who entered care in the first half of 2014, 36% were reunified with their families and 61% were still in foster care one year later. The median length of time California children spent in foster care declined between 2001 and 2009 from 17.2 to 13.2 months, but then rose to 15.6 months in 2013.

Rates of first entry into foster care and in-care rates vary by race/ethnicity and age. Among groups with data, African American/black and American Indian/Alaska Native children in California consistently have the highest rates of children/youth in foster care—23.7 and 21.3 per 1,000, respectively, in 2015, compared to 5.7 per 1,000 for Hispanic/Latino, 4.9 for white, and 1.1 for Asian/Pacific Islander children. Of all age groups, infants consistently have the highest rates of first entry into foster care. In 2013-15, the rate of California infants entering foster care for the first time (12.2 per 1,000) was nearly 3 times the rate of children ages 1-2, nearly 4 times that of ages 3-5, and more 5 times that of older age groups.
For more information on racial disproportionality and inequities in child welfare, see the Child Welfare Information Gateway.
Policy Implications
Children and youth in foster care interact with a range of public and private systems that can support them and help them obtain permanent, safe homes. Policymakers have an important role in helping to prevent children from entering foster care, ensuring the health and well being of those in care, and facilitating the connections and opportunities that enable youth “aging out” of the system to thrive as adults.

Policy and program options that could help prevent children from entering foster care and improve outcomes for those in care include:
  • Continuing to ensure that effective prevention services are in place for families with children at risk of abuse or neglect, such as family support, parent education, and home-visiting services (1)
  • Supporting efforts to provide an accessible system of quality mental health services for children in foster care or at risk of entering care, as well as for their parents (2)
  • Continuing efforts to recruit, strengthen, and support foster homes provided by relatives of children in care, removing barriers that can make it difficult for relatives to provide care; and when children cannot be placed with kin, prioritizing placements in other family settings over group settings (3)
  • Continuing to address family separation issues as a consequence of immigration enforcement (4)
  • Supporting effective strategies to reduce the overrepresentation of, and improve outcomes for, children of color in foster care (5)
  • Implementing and strengthening laws and child welfare agency practices to protect and support LGBTQ youth in foster care (6)
  • Continuing to increase awareness of and improve responses to the commercial sexual exploitation of youth in foster care (7, 8)
  • In accordance with California’s Local Control Funding Formula, supporting the educational success of children in foster care by addressing issues such as social, health, and academic needs (including specialized services), school enrollment barriers, and the need for communication and data sharing, among other issues; also, ensuring that foster youth are aware of and have support to pursue postsecondary education and workforce opportunities (9, 10, 11)
  • Ensuring effective implementation of existing laws that support foster youth in the transition to adulthood, including the California Fostering Connections to Success Act which extends foster care services to age 21, and the Affordable Care Act which extends Medicaid coverage to foster youth until age 26 (12)
  • Promoting efforts to increase collaboration across sectors (e.g., child welfare, education, health care, housing, public assistance, workforce systems, and others) to ensure that all foster youth—including those with disabilities, parenting and pregnant foster youth, those facing homelessness, and other vulnerable groups—receive the services and support they need to thrive (11, 12, 13)
For more information, see’s Research & Links section, or visit the Child Welfare Information Gateway, California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare, or California Fostering Connections Project.

Sources for this narrative:

1.  National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2016). Child abuse and neglect: Prevention strategies. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from:

2.  California Department of Social Services, & California Department of Health Care Services. (2013). Pathways to mental health services: Core practice model guide. Retrieved from:

3.  Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2015). Every kid needs a family: Giving children in the child welfare system the best chance for success. Retrieved from:

4.  Lincroft, Y. (2013). The Reuniting Immigrant Families Act: A case study on California’s Senate Bill 1064. First Focus State Policy Advocacy and Reform Center. Retrieved from:

5.  Miller, O., & Esenstad, A. (2015). Strategies to reduce racially disparate outcomes in child welfare. Center for the Study of Social Policy, Alliance for Racial Equity in Child Welfare. Retrieved from:

6.  Human Rights Campaign. (n.d.). LGBTQ youth in the foster care system. Retrieved from:

7.  Walker, K. (2013). Ending the commercial sexual exploitation of children: A call for multi-system collaboration in California. California Child Welfare Council. Retrieved from:

8.  Children’s Defense Fund, et al. (2015). Implementing the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (P.L. 113-183) to benefit children and youth. Retrieved from:

9.  Frerer, K., et al. (2013). At greater risk: California foster youth and the path from high school to college. Stuart Foundation. Retrieved from:

10.  Alliance for Children’s Rights, et al. (n.d.). Foster youth education toolkit. Retrieved from:

11.  Russ, E., & Fryar, G. (2014). Creating access to opportunities for youth in transition from foster care. American Youth Policy Forum. Retrieved from:

12.  California Fostering Connections Project. (n.d.). California fostering connections to success. Retrieved from:

13.  Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative. (2014). From foster home to homeless: Strategies to prevent homelessness for youth transitioning from foster care. Retrieved from:
Websites with Related Information
Key Reports and Research
County/Regional Reports
More Data Sources For Foster Care